CTFR 18/274,779 CTFR 86818 DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Applicant's amendment filed March 30 th , 2026 has been entered. Claim 5 has been amended. The Section 102/103 rejections over Deisenroth (as a primary reference) have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed March 30 th , 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-15 AIA Claim s 5-6, 11, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Gozzelino et al. ( Quaternary ammonium monomers for UV crosslinked antibacterial surfaces ) (hereinafter “Gozzelino”), wherein claim 14 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gozzelino in view of Guggenbichler et al. (DE 102013101909 A1) (hereinafter “Guggenbichler”) . Regarding claims 5-6, 11, and 14, Gozzalino teaches a film/coating for medical devices, healthcare products, dental products, water purification systems, textiles (inherently comprising micro/nano-structures), food packaging, among other fields, where infections from pathogenic microorganisms are a great concern, wherein the film/coating is based an acrylic copolymer comprising a an antimicrobial quaternary ammonium monomer having a polymerizable methacrylate group and a pendant group, formed by reacting 2-(N,N-dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate (DMAEMA) and a halogenated alkane of preferably 7 to 16 carbon atoms, with preferred/specific examples comprising 10 (decylalkane), 12 (dodecylalkane) and (most preferred) 16 (hexadecylalkane) and having a weight fraction of 5%, 10%, 20%, or 30%, with the balance (70-95 wt%) comprising tri(propylene glycol) diacrylate (TPGDA) and/or polyethylene-glycol diacrylate (PEGDA), UV crosslinkable multifunctional monomers having at least two acrylate groups, that can be applied to a substrate surface without the use of solvents, wherein the substrate used was sterilized polystyrene, but may be varied among glass, stainless steel, and plastics, wherein any substrate will inherently comprise micro-/nano-structures thereon. Regarding claim 14, while the article can be any substrate in a field such as medical devices, healthcare products, dental products, water purification systems, textiles (inherently comprising micro/nano-structures), food packaging [Introduction], it is not explicitly stated to be an interior or external surface of a vehicle, housing or case of an electronic device, or a furniture component. The MPEP 2111.02 states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Alternatively, Guggenbichler teaches an antimicrobially effective surface and an article therewith, wherein the article comprises an antimicrobial organic coating comprising acrylate/acrylic-based monomers/polymers [0012-0014, 0040-0042], wherein the article can be used in many fields such as medical technology and packaging, also furniture, mobile phone (electronic device) cases, and door handles and parts of the interior of vehicles [0032]. It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the acrylate-based copolymer antimicrobial coating in to any substrate including those claimed . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozzelino, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Bommarito et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0211310 A1) (hereinafter “Bommarito”) . Regarding claims 9 and 11-14, predetermined micro- and/or nano-structures comprising the claimed shapes is not taught and in the event that the coating/film as recited above is not taught as being disposed on the structured surface, which may be an adhesive backed or fluoropolymer substrate. Bommarito teaches an engineered surface of a substrate for uses such as on medical devices [0001, 0004-0006, 0008, 0043, 0046] such as dome-shapes or other shapes [0057-0063], wherein the microstructures further comprise nanostructures [0049, 0097], wherein the engineered surface can be coated with an antimicrobial coating [0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the antimicrobial coating to an engineered surface comprising micro- and/or nano-structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide both short and long term to better control biofilm formation [0004-0005, 0051]. Regarding claim 12, the substrate is a silicone polymer, wherein some of the silicon atoms may obviously be replaced by fluoropolymers [0059-0040]. Regarding claim 13, Bommarito teaches/makes obvious that the engineered coated microstructured and nanostructured surface can be formed as a film that is affixed to a substrate, such as via (pressure-sensitive) adhesive [0104]. Regarding claim 14, Bommarito teaches/makes obvious that medical devices including the engineered coated microstructured and nanostructured surface include implants of all types including pacemakers or cochlear (electronic device) implants [0046] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozzelino, optionally in view of Guggenbichler, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Ylitalo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0263793 A1) (hereinafter “Ylitalo”), wherein claim 10 is (even) further in view of Walker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0236697 A1) (hereinafter “Walker”), wherein claim 12 is optionally further in view of David et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,134,566 B2) (hereinafter “David”) . Regarding claims 9-14, predetermined micro- and/or nano-structures comprising the claimed shapes is not taught and in the event that the coating/film as recited above is not taught as being disposed on the structured surface, which may be an adhesive backed or fluoropolymer substrate. Ylitalo teaches micro- and/or nano-structures forming an antimicrobial film, usable for food packaging, vehicles, furniture, or touch screen displays [0002, 0103, 0105, 0110], the film being a multilayered film comprising a substrate with a nano and/or microstructured first surface [0062, 0064], wherein the substrate is not limited and may comprise a fluorinated thermoplastic/fluoropolymer [0032], wherein a second surface comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive [0006-0007, 0029, 0065, 0067], wherein the structured surface is further coated for antibacterial purposes, wherein the structured surface increases adhesion of the antibacterial coating [0041, 0076, 0105]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the antimicrobial coating to an engineered first surface comprising micro- and/or nano-structures of a substrate, which may further comprise a fluoropolymer and/or an adhesive film. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide antimicrobial surfaces to a variety of substrates sized to fit industry standard components [0103, 0110] wherein the coating would have been provided increased adhesion due to the structured surface over a smooth one [0105]. Further regarding claim 10, Walker teaches a micro and nanostructured adhesive film usable on a display device [0075, 0099, 0103], wherein the micro- and/or nano-structures comprise a cumulative slope magnitude such that at least 30% have a slope magnitude of at least 0.7 degrees and at least 25% have a slope magnitude less than 1.3 degrees [0009, 0069-0074], wherein the slope magnitude values as set forth prevent visual degradation of an image displayed therethrough [0074-0075]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a structured surface provided to a display screen with a slope magnitude within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prevent degradation of images therethrough [Walker]. Further regarding claim 12, David teaches a nanostructured article, useful for display applications, wherein the nanostructures may be disposed on a surface that is already microstructured (col. 17, lines 8-16), wherein fluoropolymer substrates are a notoriously difficult to coat due to their chemical and adhesion resistance (inherent hydrophobicity/oleophobicity) (col. 2, lines 41-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a substrate difficult to that is notoriously difficult to coat due to chemical and adhesion resistance with the claimed coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an antimicrobial coating to a surface that would anti-adhesion/hydrophobicity in the event the coating were to delaminate, which would transfer any liquid/fluid containing potential bacteria therein toward the remaining (relatively hydrophilic) antimicrobial coated structured surfaces . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure : Perichaud et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0095266 A1) teach a biocidal copolymer comprising at least one monomer comprising a biocidal group, specifically a quaternary ammonium (meth)acrylate-based monomer of the claimed formula comprising 8-16 carbon atoms [0087], and a co-polymerizable mono-, di-, or pluri-functional acrylate monomers, preferably bi- or pluri-functional for reticulation/crosslinking via photopolymerization [0133-0142], wherein concentrations may be 5 to 95 wt%, preferably 5 to 50 wt%, biocidal monomers and 5 to 95 wt%, preferably 10 to 75 wt%, copolymerizable compounds [0160]. This expands on the range provided by Gozzelino, wherein the antibacterial monomer proportion could be raised via emulsion polymerization. Fan et al. ( Bactericidal and Hemocompatible Coating via the Mixed-Charged Copolymer ) teach an acrylic copolymer comprising a cationic quaternary ammonium monomer for antibacterial purposes and an anionic group of methacrylate acid monomer in a ratio to improve hemocompatibility providing an antifouling effect. Kristiansen (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0125513 A1) teaches a hydrophilic, water-swellable cross-linked matrix of hydrophilic acrylic copolymer having at least one antimicrobial monomer in an amount of up 50 wt% [0021] and a hydrophilic monomer which may be methacrylic acid or acrylic acid [0036]. Dias et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0169715 A1) teach a crosslinked hydrophilic coating comprising an acrylic polymer polyelectrolyte comprising one or more types of cations or anions including quaternary ammonium salts and/or acrylic acid [0017-0018, 0020-0021]. Lou et al. (CN 111825881 A) teach a antibacterial coating comprising an acrylic copolymer comprising a polymerizable quaternary ammonium salt acrylate-based monomer, a copolymerizable acrylate monomer, and a high-moisture permeability polymer preferably comprising acrylic acid (among three other preferred choices) [0027]. One or more of the above patents could modify Gozzelino to provide the article as claimed including the polar monomer as claimed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 June 2 nd , 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 2 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 3 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 4 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 5 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 6 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 7 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 8 Art Unit: 1781 Application/Control Number: 18/274,779 Page 9 Art Unit: 1781
Prosecution Insights